Here is a list of all the postings Dizz has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: No model Flying in the Cardiff area 3-5 Sep 14|
Didn't we did have something very similar during the Olympics?
I guess that it will be publicised in the local media: not enough notice for the modelling press I suspect. They have made a start by feeding it to the BMFA and the info hasbeen published on the web site. Not sure what else can be done.
As is says in the thread title.......please see link for more information:
|Thread: Flying models made from 'cancelled' British aircraft of the past.|
I don't think so, more a rather more practical reason: advances in turbine technology, especially wrt reheat/after burners, meant that the performance gains from rocket power were able to matched by a pure jet without the complication of additional power and support systems.
I agree that there was an agressive F104 sales pitch covering the later period in question, which also saw off the Arrow in Canada, but the SR177 would have been a complete nightmare to operate in the roles intended simply from the HTP logistics requirement.
Reminds me that I also built and "flew" a small SR177 too! It was 6 years ago, everything about my build was completely wrong and after 3 attempts to launch it suffered a CAT 5 impact with the ground. I still have the CAD files and now know what to change in the design to make it flyable, but so much other stuff I want to do first.
I know that Simon, but it isn't a model of the mock up
Mine is based on the Olympus powered 3-view with the bigger rear end - more room to hide the all moving tail plane crank.
Some basic details:
S 26.7" (680mm) L 30.3" (770mm) W 2lb (910g) Phase3 56mm EDF from a dead F16, Don's Wicked Extreme 570W on 4S T:W 0.74
S 26" (663mm) L 33.7" (857mm) W 3lb 4oz (1.33kg) Wemo Mini pro fan, HET 2W-20 800w on 4S T:W 0.8 Fuselage design based on the Westwings Hunter kit
Both a bit tricky to get in the air, but once flying behave themselves. Endurance limited to about 3 1/2 minutes, but to be honest that is plenty enough time.
S 36" (822mm) L 49.9" (1267mm) W 5lb 2oz (2.33kg) Lander 78mm fan1450W on 6S T:W 0.8
S 29.75" (756mm) L 50.4" (1280mm) W 4lb 3oz (1.9kg) HET 6904, AEC 28-58-1 motor 1400W on 6S T:W 0.95
These last 2 have been ready to fly since last summer, but we have kept finding excuses not too. However might actually get around to it during summer leave at Merryfield. I did all the drawing in ACAD and either CNC or laser cut the parts. I also cnc'ed my own plugs to vac-form fan ducting and canopies. Painted with either car rattle cans or aIrbushed with Humbrol enamles with a coat of KlassKote to seal. Make my own decals on a vinyll cutter.
Edited By Dizz on 07/08/2014 12:15:54
Edited By Dizz on 07/08/2014 12:17:03
Not PSS, but here are 3 of my "Planes That Never Flew" own design EDfs from the last few years.
The M52 and P1091 have obviously flown (quite well after initial C of G and control throws were adjusted), but the P1554 has not been in the air yet (too scared!). I also have a Hawker P1121 (not flown), but don't have any photos on this computer I'm afraid.
Edited By Dizz on 06/08/2014 12:40:46
|Thread: Quads and the A-cert|
Full Council deferred the subject to Areas Council, which would be the normal body to consider Achievement Scheme matters.
August is the earliest that an Areas Council meeting can be convened.
|Thread: bmfa online poll heritage and flying centre|
I think you are all missing the point: this is a funded (by our insurers, ie no cost to the BMFA) feasibility study into all aspects relating to a potential "National Centre for model flying", including what form it should take, where it should be sited, how funded, run, etc, etc. Until the study reports next May any claim of how it would operate or what it would provide is pure speculation and only serves to undermine the efforts that have been, and are being made, to finally answer the questions.
|Thread: Stan Yeos PMP Carrera Glider|
Stan laser cuts the parts himself so I'm sure he would be able to oblige. Well worth giving him a bell
|Thread: vulcan b2|
The plan and wood pack are for the original 2 motor pusher model: they have not been updated to reflect how he fitted the 4 fans as described recently in RCMW.
|Thread: GPS Telemetry Module|
The GPS telemetry data is saved to a file on the SD card (DX18), but at the moment Horizon doesn't produce a PC interface. However there is a good 3rd party program available :
It was featured in the recent RCM&E special. It will generate a second file which will display the track in Google Earth. I haven't used it to look at any flight logs yet, but the test I did driving down town and back was very accurate.
Yes Spektrum GPS unit is available in the UK; I have had one for 14 months. Available from Al's Hobbies, Kings Lynn and on e-bay amongst others - Google comes up with several stockists.
|Thread: Thrust tubes ?|
Some do, some don't. Is the exhaust duct fairly smooth anyway? Not many EDFs have a sparkling vertical performance unless specifically built for a high thrust; typically static thrust:weight ratios are around 0.65, but of course there are many variations. To get higher thrust (at the expense of top speed) and keeping the same motor/fan combos you would need to increase the eflux area, but it would be almost impossible to predict exactly what increase you would get.
As it flew OK and the effort required to bump up the thrust I would be inclined to leave it.
|Thread: A national flying site?|
Home now and checked back: to correct my last post..........
I confirm that the subs increase wasn’t anything to do with a national flying site or museum, just a concern that the budget was too tight with expected fuel and postage increases given the financial situation then. From the 2011 AGM minutes:
"He also feels the subscriptions are too low. Consideration must be given to the significant increase we will be faced with for postage costs in the coming year and the current fuel situation, which will wipe out a large amount of the proposed membership fee increase. He suggested we should consider an increase of £2 on the fee for senior members only and £1 increase on the rest."
The increase was not voted on by Area Delegates, but by all the Club Delegates at the AGM. The matter of subscription fees are standing AGM business and attendees are able to table amendments to proposals just like at any other Club AGM.
Edited By Dizz on 17/10/2013 16:59:36
Edited By Dizz on 17/10/2013 17:22:17
Can't argue with any of that...................except that there isn't a proposal on the table yet and possibly never may be!
The additional £1 increase 2 years ago came about because certain members thought that given the financial climate money should be raised for strategic development – contrary to the Hon Treasurers recommendation and argument that there was already a fund in place for that purpose.
My worry is that a vocal minority might again be able to force through a proposal. In no way am saying it will happen, but it could. Obviously the more clubs that attend, the higher the total votes available to be cast and a more representative outcome results: hence my question if your club would be represented at the (BMFA) AGM. Proxy voting is allowed.
Edited By Dizz on 17/10/2013 14:04:40
Elfolg – I agree, there is history.
The fund you refer to was started using a £120,000 VAT refund and appears in the accounts as “Development Fund”. It was openly debated/discussed at the time and is reflected in the AGM minutes. The additional £1 increase to the subs over what the Hon Treasurer had recommended for the 2012-2013 budget only just got through on a poll (card vote). The extra £1has generated a surplus of around £30k and this has been added to the Development Fund. All the accounts are public and will be presented at the AGM next month on 30 Nov.
Please don’t loose sight of the fact that this survey is exactly that: a survey concerning the possible establishment of a BMFA National Flying Site & Heritage Centre and is part of work to define the strategic way forward for the organisation which arose following a proposal from the London Area to Full Council at the beginning of the year IIRC (afraid I haven’t got hard copies of the minutes with me to refer back to). It will inform the Exec whether further effort should be expended in generating firm options to put to the membership for discussion. You do have to start somewhere.
If there is another proposal at the AGM to increase subs will your club be represented and able to vote on the matter?
Afraid I can't help with that Bearair. I am relying on the minutes too until reports are made to Full Council.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Well you have the advantage over me because I haven't got a clue who you are. You will also be aware that I was not at that Full Council Meeting.
If you answered "No" there was still opportunity to expand and explain why. Seems that option was not taken.
BEB - You obviously replied "No" to question 2 and therefore no need for further comment. If you had selected one of the other options you would have had chance to expand on all the points you raise in subsequent questions.
It is survey using conditional questions which lead down different paths depending on response to gauge interest in just one element of better defining how the BMFA serves it's members , in no way is it a binding vote. The tool (Surveymonkey) is just one way for the Exec and Council to gauge appetite for a National Flying site (or not) and what facilities it could/should provide (or not).
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!